Abortion: 10 years as an atheist and I still don't get it

[Agnostico]

Yes, abortion is mentioned in magic book, as I already explained to you. Magic book is fine with it, magic book recommends it

Does it? Where?

Moral realism - right and wrong are determined by objective facts.

Moral subjectivism - right and wrong are determined by subjective facts.

Such convoluted definitions i came across and its simply that... Ok.
"Right and wrong" needs defining. Could mean anything. Even a lot of definitions of morality is too broad i think
Among the possible objective facts of a given topic i can already see a person choosing to apply one set of facts over the other to determine their truth 

Who cares what my explanation of moral realism makes me sound like?  I don't.  It's simply a consequence of the realist position that some set of moral propositions is right, and the rest are wrong.  The trouble isn't that a person fails to understand "the other side" - they understand them fine...and think they are wrong.

Take the the abortion poll we had. There were 4 or 5 options. 
Tell me what makes your opinion objective cos i only see subjective opinions here.

Mainly the opinion of when it should be legal to kill an unborn child. A persons opinion is influenced by his/hers experiences and beliefs making it subjective,  right?

One persons objective may be the mothers well being, the other persons objective is the babies well being

Whose truth is truer?

---

[The Architect Of Fate]

Such convoluted definitions i came across and its simply that... Ok 

No it's literally the correct definition 

Take the the abortion poll we had. There were 4 or 5 options. 
Tell me what makes your opinion objective cos i only see subjective opinions here.

Then that shows why you have business talking about ethics 

Mainly the opinion of when it should be legal to kill an unborn child. A persons opinion is influenced by his/hers experiences and beliefs making it subjective,  right?

Nope 

One persons objective may be the mothers well being, the other persons objective is the babies well being

Nope 

Whose truth is truer?

Truth is not a matter of opinion

[The Valkyrie]

In all frankness, as far as I'm concerned, the life of a living, breathing person will always have preference over that of a potential life.

[Agnostico]

In all frankness, as far as I'm concerned, the life of a living, breathing person will always have preference over that of a potential life.

Do u mean the breathing persons health or choice?

U basically believe she should have the choice before about 20 weeks. Only a health risk or something after 20 weeks. Right?

Also are u a guy or a girl?

[The Valkyrie]

In all frankness, as far as I'm concerned, the life of a living, breathing person will always have preference over that of a potential life.

Do u mean the breathing persons health or choice?

U basically believe she should have the choice before about 20 weeks. Only a health risk or something after 20 weeks. Right?

Also are u a guy or a girl?

I mean exactly what I said.

See avatar.

[Agnostico]

Do u mean the breathing persons health or choice?

U basically believe she should have the choice before about 20 weeks. Only a health risk or something after 20 weeks. Right?

Also are u a guy or a girl?

I mean exactly what I said.

See avatar.

Ok so your a girl.

Cmon now there is no reason to hate. My opinion of abortion up to 12 weeks isn't that much different to yours.

Im only trying to confirm that my interpretation of what uv said is correct

[Fake Messiah]

The way I see it is that abortion could be historically tied with infanticide, which is a very old and sad phenomenon that has been practiced by people out of necessity, but it has also been used for one tribe of people to demonize another tribe of people. Like even Romans used to accuse Carthaginians of killing their babies and therefore being monsters against which wars must be fought, while, of course, Romans had the practice of infanticide and infant exposure throughout the longevity of their empire and it continued even during Christianization of Europe. I mean take London where Thomas Coram, who helped to found the London Foundling Hospital in the 1730s, was motivated to do so by seeing, on his daily walk to work, the large number of infants thrown on dunghills or on the sides of the road, "sometimes alive, sometimes dead, and sometimes dying". Or take "Godfrey's cordial" was a potion that some poor families in England in the 19th century mixed to give their children and inoculate them to death.

But, as I said, although it was practiced in Europe, Europeans and Church still used infanticide to demonize other people so they can slaughter them. For instance, I remember in the movie “The Mission” (1986) there is a hearing between a rouge missionary who is trying to defend a Paraguayan jungle tribe in front of Church officials so that it doesn’t get slaughtered and the conversation goes like:

And they are not naturally animals.

- They're naturally spiritual.

- Spiritual?

- They kill their own young.

- That is true. May I answer that?

Every man and woman is allowed one child. If a third is born, it is killed. But this is not some animal rite. It’s a necessity for survival. They can only run with one child apiece.

And what do they run from?

They run from us.
- That is, they run from slavery.

Indeed, accusations of infanticide are used even in modern times like the whole false Nayirah testimony how Iraqis are killing babies and therefore President George H. W. Bush must organize the Gulf War.

So now Christians are using abortions as atrocity propaganda to show themselves as morally superior because they want to ban all abortions and going so far as even forbidding contraception (like Catholics) and equating it with murder—all of which actually does not contribute to lower abortion rates.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

In all frankness, as far as I'm concerned, the life of a living, breathing person will always have preference over that of a potential life.

Do u mean the breathing persons health or choice?

U basically believe she should have the choice before about 20 weeks. Only a health risk or something after 20 weeks. Right?

Also are u a guy or a girl?

If Valks isn't a female, photoshop has reached heights of quality never before dreamed of by mortal man.

Boru

[R00tKiT]

It's amusing to see atheists rationalize abortion with all kinds of analogies, the underlying reasoning being that the infant's life is less worth than the mother's. All this just to comfortably have more sex. You are senseless murderers at the baby scale. The more mature murderers who understood atheism better are the kind of exemplary leaders like Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, etc. and the pyramids of skulls associated with their names.

How can you justify killing millions of bacteria when you shower, atheists? Aren't they life too?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

It's amusing to see atheists rationalize abortion with all kinds of analogies, the underlying reasoning being that the infant's life is less worth than the mother's. All this just to comfortably have more sex. You are senseless murderers at the baby scale. The more mature murderers who understood atheism better are the kind of exemplary leaders like Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, etc. and the pyramids of skulls associated with their names.

How can you justify killing millions of bacteria when you shower, atheists? Aren't they life too?

Not sure I grasp your point.  You accuse us of being murderers, then ask us to justify the death of bacteria.  It seems as if that justification should come from the pro-life crowd.

If you believe that all life is precious, you should never shower again (assuming, of course, that you shower now).

Boru